Home › Archive for Income-Tax Act › Page 876
Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Rajendra Singh Karnawat v. ACIT (2022) 138 taxmann.com 208 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP dismissed as withdrawn as final reassessment order had already passed which was appealable before CIT(A), Rajendra Singh Karnawat v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 227 /113 CCH 159 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Non disclosure of primary facts-Single ground of reopening of reassessment is valid. [S. 143(1), 148, Art. 226]

Chandrakant Narayan Patkar Charitable Trust v. ITO(E) (2022) 287 Taxman 685 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Charitable trust-Accumulation of income-Deemed accumulation of income-Change of opinion-Reassessment is not justified. [S. 11(2), 148, Art. 226]

Anil Gulabdas Shah v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 402 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Complaint with Maharashtra RERA-Complaint was amended-Reassessment notice without verifying the amended RERA complaint is held to be not valid. [S. 68, 148, Art. 226]

Lokhandwala Construction Industries (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 330/113 CCH 189 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Unsold flats-Income from house property-Issues were a subject matter of consideration by AO while completing assessment-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice is not valid. [S. 22, 43CA, 148, Art. 226]

Bhavani Gems (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 682 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Share premium-Provided working of fair value of equity shares as per rule 11UA in the original assessment proceedings-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice is not valid. [S. 56(2)(viib), 148 ,R. 11UA, Art. 226]

Peerless Hospitex Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 447 ITR 60/213 CTR 81/326 CTR 249/287 Taxman 711 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Referral fees to doctors for referring-Allowed in the course of assessment proceedings-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice is not valid [S. 37(1), 148, Medical Council (Professional Conducts, Etiquettes and Ethics) Regulation Act, 2002 Regulations, 6.4, 6.8 and 8.1 s Art. 226]

Virbac Animal Health India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 590 / 113 CCH 256 / (2023) 453 ITR 787 (Bom.)(HC).Editorial: SLP of Revenue dismissed , ACIT v. Virbac Animal Health India Pvt. Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 794 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Sales promotion/freebees-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice is bad in law. [S. 37(1), Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2022

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 36/113 CCH 275 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Deduction in respect of expenditure on specified business-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice is not valid [S. 35AD, 148, Art. 226]

Rajkumar S. Singh v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 296/114 CCH 300 (Bom.)(HC) Rita Rajkumar Singh v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 413/114 CCH 318 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Penny stock-Capital gains-Information from DDIT(Inv)-No allegation of failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice is not valid. [S. 45, 68, 148, Art. 226]

Meer Gems v. ACIT (2022) 446 ITR 754/287 Taxman 689 (Bom.)(HC)SLP of Revenue is dismissed , ACIT v. Meer Gems (2023) 459 ITR 1 / 294 Taxman 606 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Amount payable to sundry creditors-Cessation of liability-No new information-Re assessment notice is quashed. [S. 41(1), 148, Art. 226]